Kinda skimmed through the last few pages. I didn't read the linked articles, but saw what people quoted in the threads. Does anyone actually support what Sowell is saying? I don't think lindbergh or pseudo actually buy into what he's saying. It seems like the argument is going something like "Sowell is an idiot" "The person writing the article is an idiot" The two sides in this thread don't necessarily disagree. Can we all just agree that we like neither Sowell nor the article criticizing him?

Kinda skimmed through the last few pages. I didn't read the linked articles, but saw what people quoted in the threads. Does anyone actually support what Sowell is saying? I don't think lindbergh or pseudo actually buy into what he's saying. It seems like the argument is going something like "Sowell is an idiot" "The person writing the article is an idiot" The two sides in this thread don't necessarily disagree. Can we all just agree that we like neither Sowell nor the article criticizing him?

Haha, well I just wanted to point out that the article doesn't seem intellectually honest either. But I guess my main point is that the captain and lindbergh seemed to be arguing past each other, more than arguing with each other.

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

None of this changes the fact that you're more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected gay sex vs. unprotected straight sex, or the fact that you're far more likely to catch AIDS if you're gay, or the fact that AIDS has devastated the gay community.

(1. A higher percentage of gays already have AIDS. 2. AIDS is spread most easily through anal sex. 3. Anal sex is more common in gay sex.)

This is the reason gay activists are far more vocal on the issue than other groups. They certainly consider it a gay issue to some extent. Claiming otherwise is simply ridiculous.

That is only true in the U.S. and certain other regions. In many other countries, such as Uganda, the risk associated with anal and vaginal sex are the same. Can you guess why?

Don't play me, playa. I could have copied and pasted. We were thinking along the same lines. And tj please....Pseudo and Lindbergh (no offense) have been regergitating conservative psycho-babble throught this thread.

I'm honestly not sure that the risks are in fact the same in Uganda, although sexual practices there clearly make straight sex far more dangerous (because there's simply far more promiscuity, unprotected sex, and consequent infection). However, age of female partners is also a factor both in Africa and in the U.S. Younger women are more likely to catch AIDS, and younger women are generally more sexually active, at a younger age, in Uganda. (There's also probably far more rape, etc.)

Don't play me, playa. I could have copied and pasted. We were thinking along the same lines. And tj please....Pseudo and Lindbergh (no offense) have been regergitating conservative psycho-babble throught this thread.

Just stating the facts. As usual, however, you don't want to accept them.

Kinda skimmed through the last few pages. I didn't read the linked articles, but saw what people quoted in the threads. Does anyone actually support what Sowell is saying? I don't think lindbergh or pseudo actually buy into what he's saying. It seems like the argument is going something like "Sowell is an idiot" "The person writing the article is an idiot" The two sides in this thread don't necessarily disagree. Can we all just agree that we like neither Sowell nor the article criticizing him?

"Contrary to Sowell's suggestion that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals, the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years, while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined, along with the overall infection rate."

Just to point out why I don't like the excerpts I've seen from the article...Sowell implies that AIDS is a "homosexual disease", but to say that he suggests that "AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals" seems pretty disingenuous, at least based on what's been quoted in this thread. Those stats also look potentially very misleading

"the United States' AIDS epidemic has increasingly affected heterosexuals over the past 15 years" - this seems to simply mean that more heterosexual people have AIDs than 15 years ago, not that the per capita rate has increased.

"while the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has declined" Now here he's using the "rate", which would mean per capita I assume

"along with the overall infection rate" - I'm assuming again that "rate" means per capita infections. So, in order for the overall infection rate to decrease, the heterosexuality rate is probably decreasing too, unless the homosexuality rate is decreasing at such a high rate that that small percentage of the population is able to counter the increase in the heterosexual rate. It seems to me pretty blatant that they're trying to make readers think a greater percentage of heterosexuals are contracting AIDs, but in actuality, the rate of AIDS is decreasing, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I may be missing something, so no one go crazy if I'm wrong here.

So in sum, Sowell seems like a bigoted idiot, but at least based on what has been quoted here, I don't think that article was good or honest either.

By the way, do a higher percentage of homosexuals have AIDS compared to heterosexuals? This seems to be one of the main sticking points. Obviously stats like "90% of AIDs cases are heterosexual" don't really help much.

You pretty much covered everything I wanted to say about the reasoning and statistics given in the Media Matters article.

BTW, if Sowell defines "homosexual lifestyle" as any lifestyle where the person has homosexual sex, then don't agree with Sowell, because gay people in monogamous, disease-free relationships don't contract AIDS from their partners.

But if Sowell's definition of "homosexual lifestyle" is one where gay people have promiscuous gay sex, as Lindbergh seems to imply, then I do agree with Sowell, because promiscuous sex is more likely to result in contracting AIDS than monogamous sex, and anal sex is more likely to spread AIDS than other forms of sex, due to the absorbancy of the tissues around the rectum and higher likelihood of tissue tears from that form of sex.

Since Sowell contends that gay activists pass out information on where to find gay bars to kids, and one assumes (as I do) that gay bars are where one goes to find gay promiscuous sex partners, then I think the latter definition is more likely than the former, although because this definition is somewhat ambiguous, I think it's reasonable for people to disagree what he meant when he wrote it.

At least we can all agree that MM wholly mischaracterized what Sowell wrote, right?